NVIDIA GeForce GTS 150M vs ATI Radeon X800 GT
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GTS 150M and ATI Radeon X800 GT videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G2D Mark, PassMark - G3D Mark.
Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 150M
- Videocard is newer: launch date 3 year(s) 4 month(s) later
- 2.1x more core clock speed: 1000 MHz vs 475 MHz
- 3.4x more texture fill rate: 13 billion / sec vs 3.8 GTexel / s
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 65 nm vs 110 nm
- 8x more maximum memory size: 1 GB vs 128 MB
- 6x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 504 vs 84
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | 3 March 2009 vs 1 November 2005 |
Core clock speed | 1000 MHz vs 475 MHz |
Texture fill rate | 13 billion / sec vs 3.8 GTexel / s |
Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm vs 110 nm |
Maximum memory size | 1 GB vs 128 MB |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 504 vs 84 |
Reasons to consider the ATI Radeon X800 GT
- Around 13% lower typical power consumption: 40 Watt vs 45 Watt
- Around 4% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 423 vs 407
Specifications (specs) | |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 40 Watt vs 45 Watt |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 423 vs 407 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTS 150M
GPU 2: ATI Radeon X800 GT
PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
Name | NVIDIA GeForce GTS 150M | ATI Radeon X800 GT |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G2D Mark | 407 | 423 |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 504 | 84 |
Compare specifications (specs)
NVIDIA GeForce GTS 150M | ATI Radeon X800 GT | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | Tesla | R400 |
Code name | G94 | R430 |
Launch date | 3 March 2009 | 1 November 2005 |
Place in performance rating | 377 | 375 |
Type | Laptop | Desktop |
Technical info |
||
Core clock speed | 1000 MHz | 475 MHz |
CUDA cores | 64 | |
Floating-point performance | 128 gflops | |
Gigaflops | 192 | |
Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 110 nm |
Pipelines | 64 | |
Texture fill rate | 13 billion / sec | 3.8 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 45 Watt | 40 Watt |
Transistor count | 505 million | 160 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
Audio input for HDMI | S / PDIF | |
Display Connectors | DisplayPortHDMIDual Link DVILVDSSingle Link DVIVGA | 1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video |
HDMI | ||
Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | |
Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
Laptop size | large | |
MXM Type | MXM 3.0 Type-B | |
SLI options | 2-way | |
Supplementary power connectors | None | |
API support |
||
DirectX | 10.0 | 9.0b |
OpenGL | 2.1 | 2.0 |
Memory |
||
Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 128 MB |
Memory bandwidth | 51 GB / s | 31.55 GB / s |
Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
Memory type | GDDR3 | DDR |
Shared memory | 0 | |
Memory clock speed | 986 MHz | |
Technologies |
||
CUDA | ||
MXM 3.0 Type-B | ||
PCI-E 2.0 | ||
Power management | 8.0 | |
PowerMizer 8.0 | ||
PureVideo HD |